Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2008
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue the writ or order or Direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent through his proceedings No. DSO/CSI/EC.No.93/2008 dated 26th July 2008 in Seizing the stock of 548 quintals of Red gram covered under Panchanama dt: 24.07.2008 conducted by the 4th respodent belonging to the petitioenrs stored in the godowns of the 6th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14,21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respodnets to release the seized stock of 548 Quintals of Red gram belonging to the petitioenrs by setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26-7-2008 whereby and whereunder, in purported exercise of power under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of a quantity of 548 Qtls. of Red Gram seized from Sri Sai Lakshmi Rural Godowns, Karivena Village, Atmamur Mandal, Kurnool District, to the Public Distribution System. The 2nd respondent states in the order that the order of interim disposal is passed with a view to avoid natural decay. As per the mediators’ report dated 24-7-2008 on which date the inspection of the premises of Sri Sai Lakshmi Rural Godowns was made and the above quantity of Red Gram allegedly belonging to the five petitioners was seen stored in the godown, an inference is drawn that on the basis of the total extent of Ac.64-24 owned or cultivating by these five persons and on the basis of the average yield per acre assessed the quantity of Red Gram stored is seen to be far in excess of the average yield.
Consequently an inference of unlicenced trade and hoarding of Red Gram is recorded and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act have been initiated. As Red Gram is per se not a commodity subject to speedy and natural decay and the 2nd respondent has merely recorded in the impugned order that the interim sale is ordered on account of the “natural decay” potential of Red Gram and since the substantive proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, in the context of the factual circumstances of the case would not consume much time, this Court considers it appropriate to interdict the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26-7-2008, in so far as it directs interim sale of the seized commodity. The 2nd respondent shall now consider and expeditiously pass final orders in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petitioners shall lodge their objections to the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and since they already have a copy of the mediators’ report as well as the order dated 26-7- 2008 of the 2nd respondent and are therefore, aware of the grounds on which the 6-A proceedings are initiated, the petitioners may lodge their objections setting out whatsoever defencea they consider appropriate, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall also cooperate with the 2nd respondent in enabling expeditious disposal of the final proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The 2nd respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioners intimating the date of enquiry for final disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, and may proceed with the enquiry exparte, if the petitioners do not choose to appear on the date so fixed and intimated. Pending finalisation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the 2nd respondent shall not dispose of the Red Gram seized. The writ petition is disposed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 22nd August, 2008. GRR
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Jul 2008. The bench was GODA RAGHURAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.